Table 2. Electronic chart review workflow habits among medical ICU clinicians.
| Prompt | Answer option | N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Which statement best describes your usual chart review workflow: | N = 154 a | |
| I have a methodical chart review workflow | 78 (51) | |
| My chart review workflow is haphazard/disorganized | 76 (49) | |
| If a “methodical” workflow, first data category reviewed (free-text entry): | N = 63 b | |
| Clinical notes | 40 (63) | |
| Vital sign data | 11 (17) | |
| Various other | 12 (19) | |
| What is the main reason for a haphazard chart review workflow? c | N = 76 | |
| Each piece of information leads me in different directions (inherently disorganized data) | 60 (79) | |
| Data are spread across different tabs/screens (interface design) | 39 (51) | |
| Other reason | 6 (8) | |
| Do you worry about overlooking important pieces of information during your chart review? | N = 153 a | |
| No | 35 (23) | |
| Yes | 118 (77) | |
| If so, what do you think would be the main reasons for an oversight? c | N = 118 | |
| Too many total data elements to review | 87 (74) | |
| Data are poorly displayed or organized for mass review | 74 (63) | |
| Didn't review far enough back in the record | 41 (35) | |
| Misread a report or value | 24 (20) | |
| Too busy/inadequate time for chart review (free-text entry) | 5 (4) | |
| Other reason | 3 (3) | |
Abbreviation: ICU, intensive care unit.
Note: Responses representing the plurality/majority appear in bold.
a
N < 156 (“complete response” number) indicates missing values for that question.
b
“Methodical” subgroup, total N = 78.
c
Multiple responses allowed, percentages will not sum to 100%.